Hi Karl!
I'm familiar with the 'final toledoth' theory as opposed to the
'initial toledoth' theory. I don't think the 'final toledoth' theory
fits the evidence as well as the 'initial toledoth' theory. I think
you see this most clearly in the toledoth associated with Noah's name,
as well as the fact that there is no toledoth formula at the end of
the book.
Also, just to clarify, I was not arguing that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are
conceptually or ideologically/theologically incompatible. Rather, I
was arguing that they are literarily incompatible. That is, they deal
with the same subject matter and have essentially the same agenda to
convey (they are, after all, in the same book!), but they do it with
two different stories. Gen 1 is a prologue to the rest of Genesis, and
arguably to the whole Pentateuch.
Now, I for one am a passionate advocate of the non-consecutive
interpretation of the wayyiqtol. However, the argument for Gen 2
having a different storyline to Gen 1 goes beyond just the use of
wayyiqtol verbs. An analysis of all the verb forms in Gen 2.4ff. as
well as the active content conveyed by the verbs and other lexemes
yields a very different 'story' to Gen 1. In other words, both the
verb forms and deictic markers make for a storyline in Gen 2 which is
different from Gen 1.
As such, I don't buy the 'wide angle' and 'zoomed in' views of Gen 1 &
Gen 2. I would argue for a different explanatory analogy, such as
different movements within the one musical piece, or distinct
instrumental scores for different sections of an orchestra. I hope you
see what I'm trying to get at.
Best Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774